On 12/02/14 08:36, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Albert,
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:47:31 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:19:12 +, Marc Zyngier
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The current non-sec switching code suffers from one major issue:
>>> it cannot run in secur
Hi Albert,
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:47:31 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD
wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:19:12 +, Marc Zyngier
> wrote:
>
> > The current non-sec switching code suffers from one major issue:
> > it cannot run in secure RAM, as a large part of u-boot still needs
> > to be
Hi Marc,
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:19:12 +, Marc Zyngier
wrote:
> The current non-sec switching code suffers from one major issue:
> it cannot run in secure RAM, as a large part of u-boot still needs
> to be run while we're switched to non-secure.
>
> This patch reworks the whole HYP/non-secur
The current non-sec switching code suffers from one major issue:
it cannot run in secure RAM, as a large part of u-boot still needs
to be run while we're switched to non-secure.
This patch reworks the whole HYP/non-secure strategy by:
- making sure the secure code is the *last* thing u-boot execut
4 matches
Mail list logo